From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] acpi: semaphore removal Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 00:17:46 +0200 Message-ID: <48A6008A.8080104@linux.intel.com> References: <1218831242-27618-1-git-send-email-dwalker@mvista.com> <1218831242-27618-2-git-send-email-dwalker@mvista.com> <1218831242-27618-3-git-send-email-dwalker@mvista.com> <1218831242-27618-4-git-send-email-dwalker@mvista.com> <1218831242-27618-5-git-send-email-dwalker@mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga05.intel.com ([192.55.52.89]:48210 "EHLO fmsmga101.fm.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753324AbYHOWR6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Aug 2008 18:17:58 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1218831242-27618-5-git-send-email-dwalker@mvista.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Walker Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Len Brown , Robert Moore Daniel Walker wrote: > The semaphore usage in ACPI is more like completions. The ASL > functions getting implemented here are signals which follow a > "wait for", signaled, or reset format. > > This implements the ACPI signaling methods with the Linux > completion API, instead of using semaphores. NACK. I don't see the point of emulating semaphores when there are already perfectly fine semaphores available. -Andi